No one can argue Boise St didn't go on a great run under Chris Peterson. 2 BCS trips with 2 wins over Oklahoma and TCU. Multiple undefeated seasons and many more 10+ win seasons. I really believe if this same team was "Denver St" or "Salt Lake St" they would already be in the PAC. Even if they were the University of Idaho or Idaho St they would probably have a better chance. But, unfortunately, they are not.

I do, however, believe that if the PAC does go to 14 and if the XII schools are off the table, I do see San Diego St and either Nevada or UNLV heading to the PAC. BYU is out of luck. I have also heard rumblings about New Mexico since they are a flagship and maybe even Colorado St, but I'm not sold on either of those yet.

About 1-1/2 years ago Larry Scott was asked about expansion (he constantly is). He considers anything west o fhte Rockies PAC footprint, and he commented that the PAC presidents or AD's had discussed some possible FUTURE candidates.He specifically mentioned San Diego State, Boise State, and I think maybe BYU (not sure).

There's a lot of bias. The LDS shifted the mission of the school back in the late 70's/early 80's, and took it off that PAC-like, and probably more damaging, UU-like, research-track mission. That's kind of been the shtick the PAC talking heads use when explaining BYU. It's not an institutional fit. It's private like USC and Stanford, but USC and Stanford are also AAU institutions, and BYU is not on that trajectory. Every other PAC school pretty much is, though, iirc (don't quite know of Oregon State and Wazzou). The change in institutional mission would have been forgivable...the LDS using BYU as a way to achieving certain political goals in west coast states? That's where the war really is between the Cal-4 and BYU.

I've long thought that part of the snub also had to do with LDS recruiting tactics. Because there are a lot of Mormons who play football on PAC schools, put BYU at the same level as some of those schools, and who knows how the LDS tries to coax those kids. In that regard, I don't know what BYU gives back to the PAC. It just sort of takes.

I think Utah State has a better shot at the PAC than BYU. To the PAC, they already extended an olive branch to the LDS...they took Utah. Utah State's in the same boat as UU...more favorable than BYU because of institutional mission, likeness, and a somewhat similar size.

Scott did mention Boise and SDSU. I think SDSU has a shot, albeit a very small one. They may get a rub if California politics get more involved, as the Cal State system is so large that to have the second-class citizen treatment of no PAC membership may make things a bit dicey. I think SDSU, while it adds nothing in terms of new territory, could be used as a way to reach other membership options where schools still get into California, if just not necessarily for the Cal-4. Boise's already a PAC member in wrestling...I think it goes to that extent and no further. I think Boise's 15 minutes are up, which is bittersweet.

If I had to rate the schools outside of Texas and Oklahoma and other Big XII programs that the PAC could potentially consider, I'd rate them:

The problem for anyone outside of the top three is that if/when the PAC does expand again, I doubt they'll need any MWC additives beyond one or maybe two. Heck, if either the PAC or B1G wanted Texas territory so badly by now, Rice would be a member. Maybe #7 and #8 have better chances than 5-onward...

1. Notre Dame2. Kansas3. New Mexico (due a significant rise in state population)4. Hawaii (mostly for Asian marketing opportunities and the ability to air conference games in ESPN's midnight spot/9PM for West Coast viewers)5. San Diego State (to make adding Hawaii slightly easier, to be Hawaii's conference pair)6. Rice (strangely, I could fathom a Notre Dame & Rice addition)7. Colorado State (conference pair for Colorado assuming new $250 million dollar stadium is built)8. Nevada (conference pair for Utah)9. Fresno State (conference pair for San Diego State if Hawaii is not added)10. UNLV (possible conference pair for Utah or Nevada and assuming planned new stadium on Vegas Strip is built)

On an extreme long shot, Missouri would be #2. And I do think the Pac-12 would take Missouri and Kansas with no Texas or Oklahoma right now if they could.

The PAC12 and the B12 really are singing a similar tune. Both have an array of schools outside the P5 to choose from if they wanted to expand. Both see nothing particularly attractive at this time. However, the PAC12 can sit with what they have and not bother with expansion for a long time. The B12, on the other hand, will continue to have questions about the value to have a CCG, it's footprint reach, and future vulnerability.

The B1G has even less outside the P5 group as expansion options. Such would take settling for UConn, for example. SEC non-P5 options offer nothing currently acceptable.

It's the ACC that has the most adaptable picks from non-P5 if they chose to add. And they wouldn't add a #16 unless they got a full commitment from Notre Dame. They're stymied too with that situation.

If I was in charge of the SEC, I would strongly consider adding Rice from outside of the P5. It's a great shot in the arm for academics, another trip to Texas for recruiting (all SEC schools benefit) and having Rice might entice Texas to join at a later date. Imagine if the next SEC additions were Texas and Rice. 3 AAU's in the State of Texas!! Vanderbilt and Rice in the same conference might entice North Carolina and Duke to join...

Could improve academics even more adding Georgia Tech and Virginia and moving Missouri to the West

The bold almost purely academic statement of adding Rice could change the tune in the SEC for the better AND be welcomed by all current SEC members who would love a layup win in football AND a trip to Houston every other year in football. Change the tune to "we are an academic conference" and you just might land: UNC, Duke, VA, Texas etc.

I get the feeling the B1G will get Kansas if the Big XII ever hangs it up. Their +1, however, I don't know if that's Missouri, Oklahoma (without oSu), or somehow ISU gets in (which opens the floodgates politically in certain states, like Ohio and maybe PA). I don't see Iowa State getting left out as others do. I know they're a doormat, but it's such a big school, and I don't get how you can turn away those 55K gates they'll bring. I wouldn't be surprised if the PAC took them. Honestly...especially if Kansas does somehow go west, too.

UNM is one of those schools...rock and a hard place. They would make sense for the PAC, but I think the 'Zonas want nothing to do with them. And UNM does nothing for the bottom line of that conference. Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM's biggest DMA (just barely a top 50 DMA) is pretty much 1/3 of the entire state's population. UNM, in the PAC without any Texas school, doesn't put the conference into the "promised land" for sets or recruiting, and it's sort of the same way with them to the Pacific coast were they in the Big XII without a California school. They're a big school, academically "meh," and just don't have the right philosophy on football...but I could see their PAC candidacy improve if the conference got into Texas. When I think of the PAC's woes with expansion and California exposure and saturation, UNM's unpopularity comes to mind. It's a shame, too, considering they should already be at least a Big XII member...

UNM is one of those schools...rock and a hard place. They would make sense for the PAC, but I think the 'Zonas want nothing to do with them. And UNM does nothing for the bottom line of that conference. Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM's biggest DMA (just barely a top 50 DMA) is pretty much 1/3 of the entire state's population. UNM, in the PAC without any Texas school, doesn't put the conference into the "promised land" for sets or recruiting, and it's sort of the same way with them to the Pacific coast were they in the Big XII without a California school. They're a big school, academically "meh," and just don't have the right philosophy on football...but I could see their PAC candidacy improve if the conference got into Texas. When I think of the PAC's woes with expansion and California exposure and saturation, UNM's unpopularity comes to mind. It's a shame, too, considering they should already be at least a Big XII member...

If New Mexico was in a bigger conference, I think they would fare better in football because they are near Texas and Texas recruits - no guarantees obviously. One scenario would be if the SEC wanted Oklahoma St. If so, I could see the PAC taking the pairs of Texas/Oklahoma and Texas Tech/New Mexico.

If New Mexico was in a bigger conference, I think they would fare better in football because they are near Texas and Texas recruits - no guarantees obviously. One scenario would be if the SEC wanted Oklahoma St. If so, I could see the PAC taking the pairs of Texas/Oklahoma and Texas Tech/New Mexico.

I'd like to think they could draft off that major status, too. In theory, though, they kind of had that access to both California and Texas when the MWC peaked with BYU, Utah, and TCU (with SDSU in the conference as well). Those might have been among their darkest years in the sport, however.

I would wonder if even that scenario would happen, the Arizona schools would still pan UNM, as to hoard the Cali-Tex pipeline to itself and not share with the other desert state.

Here's an ESPN 'go' blog focusing on the topic of P12 expansion but also comments about B12 realignment results and other related prior expansion:(Ted Miller, 8/22/2014; PAC-12 Problem: Losing Expansion?)Will need to scroll down for specific posting.

Less recap, the Big 12 is going to be the envy of all the conferences because of round robin and one true champion, the Big Ten is going to be the envy because the conference can now lay claim to part of the nations largest TV market, and now the Pac 12 is laying claim to owing its own network to be the envy of the other leagues.

Hey Pac 12, Big Ten, Big 12 you really want to be the envy of other conference, try winning a national championship in major college football for a change. We could even settle for a men's basketball championship as a consolation of envy.

Sometimes you have to fill for the American Athletic Conference lack of not being in the power discussion because the American is not the lucky kids to live in the parents bigger and more expensive house and strut around and take credit for someone else accomplishments.

I would not consider having USC being down as a necessarily a good thing until someone else in the conference actually steps up and plays for and wins a national football title.

Since this is a biased University of Arizona post, maybe the author should check with the University of Michigan to verify the benefits of having revenue to pay high salaries to the coach and the guaranteed results that come with this benefit of having deep pockets.

The PAC 12 has no interest in MWC teams nor in BYU.Their interest is in UT,UOKL plus OKL ST and Texas Tech

This is obvious.

Norwich was asking a hypothetical that is extremely unlikely and I gave an answer.

This is a slow time on this board so almost any postings that can help jump start a conversation are appreciated by people like me even for that fact that it gives me a break from work to think about random stuff like realignment.

You don't know what is going to happen and neither does anyone else on this board. No need to be so negative all the time, just because you disagree doesn't mean others a wrong.

And I like your posts (that say more than "not going to happen"), for the most part we seem to agree in everything but B1G expansion.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum